Question re: Spitzer & NY Law - did he really commit a crime?

[housewolf]

As best I can tell, he got caught up as a "john" who had contact with a prostitute associated with a prostitution ring.

Is that a crime according to NY law?

Or am I missing something?

[Warpy]

1. It certainly makes him a hypocrite

although going after sex trafficking rings that used unwilling women from southeast Asia as sex slaves is a little different from patronizing a high end service where one assumes everyone was a willing participant.

The main trouble I can see is if the auditor finds bills to "QAT Consulting" that were paid with taxpayer funds. If he did that one, he belongs in the can.

[housewolf]

11. I keep seeing everywhere on DU that he commited a crime

I can see where, if he used taxpayer funds, that's a problem. I guess we'll have to wait for more of the story to be told.

:hi: Warpy!

[Rex]

2. Not sure, some posts say he was running the prostitution ring

others say he was just calling for a trick. I always thought it only illegal if money exchanged hands, but I live in Texas. NY could be so and he might be really screwed. I read minimum sentence would be 5 years! And then there is the fact he MAILED money to her! Not good.

Ouch. :(

[ljm2002]

15. Nowhere has it been implied...

...that he was anything but a john.

Well, except for the headlines that screamed "Spitzer Connected To Prostitution Ring".

But when you read the stories, they all have the same facts. He used a prostitute and was caught. There may be some funny business about how he paid for it.

As for "having her moved across state lines", that does not make sense to me. It looks right now as if he called the service and arranged for her to come to his hotel room. Where she was before that was not under his control, so I don't see how they get him on anything but being a john and possibly how he paid for it.

Well of course where he really gets hammered is in the court of public opinion. As someone who went after prostitution rings, he does come off as a major hypocrite. Even if his target was human trafficking, which is certainly a worthy one.

All in all, I think he was a total fool and somewhat of a hypocrite. But I cannot help wondering if there aren't others who could have been caught in this sting but who were not. Basically, I am suspect of almost anything that the DOJ brings forward these days.

[Shakespeare]

3. If he transported her across state lines, he's prosecutable under the Mann Act.

The current story is that he took her with him from NYC to DC, which qualifies under the Mann Act as a prosecutable offense.

[Crabby Appleton]

5. Yep

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0310082spitzer1.html

[housewolf]

7. So if he made arrangements to meet her in Washington

for the purposes of sex where money has previously paid, is that considered human trafficing and transporting someone across state lines? I don't see anything where they travelled together...

I'm just trying to understand... I keep seeing everywhere on this board that "Spitzer committed a crime" and I don't understand what the crime is. The NYT says "has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month." and "The man described as Client 9 in the affidavit arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, Emperors Club VIP, on the night of Feb. 13. Mr. Spitzer traveled to Washington that evening, according to a person told of his travel arrangements."

:shrug:

:hi: Shakespeare!

[Shakespeare]

14. He didn't make arrangements to meet her--he took her with him from NYC to DC.

That's where the "crossing state lines" part comes into play.

Also, there's a story on ABC now that they began the investigation after noticing strange bank transfers from one of Spitzer's accounts. They initially thought it might be bribes, but it looks as if it's payments to the prostitution ring.

I'm bitterly disappointed in Spitzer. He should have been above this kind of behavior, especially while putting himself out there as a squeaky-clean crusader against white-collar crime. This is bad for all of us. x(

:hi: housewolf!

[housewolf]

9. Delete - dup

DU gave me an error message in error

[Fleshdancer]

4. what I want to know.....

did he break up the other prostitution rings in order to pull favor for the one he was a client of? It reminds me of the show Weeds where the DEA agent busts one drug ring in order to protect another drug ring in the area because it was operated by his girlfriend.

[librechik]

6. has not been charged

looks like he probly won't be

just got caught up in the snare while the feds were looking for bigger fish

[goodhue]

8. When it comes to prostitution, typically both the prostitute and the john are committing crimes

But there was much more going on here involving moving money to prepay

[Thepricebreaker]

10. Who cares if its a crime... he paid a pro for sex - end game.

[goodhue]

12. Okay, I looked up New York Penal Law article 230 for you

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%282%29.htm

ARTICLE 230--PROSTITUTION OFFENSES

Section 230.00 Prostitution

A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.

Prostitution is a class B Misdemeanor.


Section 230.02 Patronizing a prostitute; definitions

1. A person patronizes a prostitute when:

(a) Pursuant to a prior understanding, he pays a fee to another person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him; or

(b) He pays or agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefor such person or a third person will engage in sexual conduct with him; or

(c) He solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual conduct with him in return for a fee.

2. As used in this article, "person who is patronized" means the person with whom the defendant engaged in sexual conduct or was to have engaged in sexual conduct pursuant to the understanding, or the person who was solicited or requested by the defendant to engage in sexual conduct.


Section 230.03 Patronizing a prostitute in the fourth degree

A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute in the fourth degree when he patronizes a prostitute.

Patronizing a prostitute in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor.


Section 230.04 Patronizing a prostitute in the third degree

A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute in the third degree when, being over twenty-one years of age, he patronizes a prostitute and the person patronized is less than seventeen years of age.

Patronizing a prostitute in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 230.05 Patronizing a prostitute in the second degree

A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute in the second degree when, being over eighteen years of age, he patronizes a prostitute and the person patronized is less than fourteen years of age.

Patronizing a prostitute in the second degree is a class E felony.


Section 230.06 Patronizing a prostitute in the first degree

A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute in the first degree when he patronizes a prostitute and the person patronized is less than eleven years of age.

Patronizing a prostitute in the first degree is a class D felony.


Section 230.07 Patronizing a prostitute; defense

In any prosecution for patronizing a prostitute in the first, second or third degrees, it is a defense that the defendant did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the person was less than the age specified.


Section 230.10 Prostitution and patronizing a prostitute; no defense

In any prosecution for prostitution or patronizing a prostitute, the sex of the two parties or prospective parties to the sexual conduct engaged in, contemplated or solicited is immaterial, and it is no defense that:

1. Such persons were of the same sex; or

2. The person who received, agreed to receive or solicited a fee was a male and the person who paid or agreed or offered to pay such fee was a female.

[housewolf]

13. In other words, it's illegal to be a "john"

that seems to be what this says.

[WinkyDink]

16. Hiring a prostitute is illegal in all 50 states but for some spots in Nevada.

He mailed money for this purpose.
End of the Spitzer defense. PERIOD.
And nobody's opinion on whether this is "fair", "immoral", "moral", "stupid", or "a private matter" matters one whit in the courtroom.

Just ask erstwhile prosecutor Spitzer.